Background 
Conflicts of interest (COI) of panel members (panellists) may bias guideline recommendations. Their potential impact, and management, should be transparently reported. 
Methods 
We analysed 65 guidelines published in five anaesthesia journals (2007-2016). We report on the number (%) that 1) published COIs, 2) in a distinct paragraph, 3) described COIs of panellists and 4) of the Chairperson, 5) described the impact of the sponsor on recommendations, 6) reported procedures taken to minimise the risk of biases due to panellists’ COI or to sponsoring. 
Results 
COIs were published in 31/65 (48%) guidelines; in a distinct paragraph of 14/31 (45%). Panellists reported no COI in 7/31 (23%) guidelines, disclosed COIs without describing their impact in 23/31 (74%), and described their impact in 1/31 (3%). 16/31 (52%) chairpersons were identified; 7/31 (23%) reported no COIs, 8/31 (26%) disclosed COIs without describing their impact, and 1/31 (3%) made no statement regarding COI. Statements regarding sponsors were reported in 17/65 (26%) guidelines; 5/17 (29%) declared none, 11/17 (65%) reported sponsoring without explanation of potential impact, and 1/17 (6%) described its potential influence on the development of the guideline. 34 guidelines had COI and/or sponsorship disclosure. In 30/34 (88%), bias was deemed possible due to COIs, or to the presence of a sponsor; 4/30 (13%) described having taken protective measures. Disclosures of COI and sponsors have increased over time, but remain low.
Conclusions 
Disclosure of COI and sponsor remain low and their potential influence on the guidelines’ recommendations is poorly documented. 


05 / Reporting of conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional analysis